Whatever the ultimate casualty count at Sandy Hook Elementary School, every student there Friday was a victim. These kids—10 years old, 5 years old—had been through an experience ghastlier than most adults have ever survived.

Minutes after they made it to safety outside the school, having heard and seen unspeakable things, cable, network and local TV crews were waiting to interview them, live on camera, about things a kid should never have to talk about. Flanked by their parents, boys and girls too young to see an R-rated movie described being hustled to safety as bullets whizzed by them in the halls of their school.

It was arresting. It was heartbreaking. And it was rash, unnecessary and wrong. There is no good journalistic reason to put a child at a mass-murder scene on live TV, permission of the parents or not. There’s not even a bad-but-practical reason to do it, beyond getting buzz and adding “color” to a story. No one learned anything they couldn’t have from talking to people off-camera and privately.

Yes, reporting tragedy is terrible business, awful and necessary. Unspeakable things have happened, and it’s a journalist’s job to find out about them and tell the world. This happens in war, natural disasters and murders; it’s a sad fact of the news. Sometimes that means interviewing victims and traumatized witnesses; sometimes that even means interviewing kids.

But there are much better ways to do this. The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, for instance, offers guidelines for journalists interviewing children in tragedies: “Avoid interviewing children at the scene. They are very likely in shock and need comfort, not questioning… find a quiet place to talk away from the chaos of emergency personnel and other victims.” Also: “Be willing to wait until the parents and child are ready to talk, even if that is weeks or months after the crisis. You will likely get a much better interview.” Above all: “Traumatized people often make poor decisions. Be prepared for adults or children to change their minds once the interview is complete. If this happens, don’t use the material.”

There’s no changing your mind before a live camera, however gentle and respectful the interviewer. A non-recorded interview—as many print outlets were also running today—is a delicate enough thing to handle. But you can at least do it cautiously, take time, and give kids and parents an opportunity to rethink their decision to talk.

For that matter, a reporter off-camera can take a minute to ask some questions: “Do I need this? Is this adding to anyone’s understanding of the story? Would I want my own child asked this? Is this decent?” (Not to mention: is there a consenting adult I could be talking to instead?)

An 8-year-old kid is not a media-savvy spokesperson under the best circumstances. Under the worst circumstances talking to them live on camera, when they’re still processing a nightmare and are speaking words they can’t edit or take back—is unconscionable. This is true even with a parent’s permission, even if the kid is willing, even if he or she “seems fine.” You do not know how fine that kid is. No one knows how badly affected a child is moments after surviving a mass murder: not a psychologist, not a parent, certainly not the stressed-out reporter sticking out a microphone.

It’s difficult enough after a tragedy like this to answer how we can protect kids from violence in a safe place. We at least know how we can protect them from being exploited in the moments afterward. Turn the cameras away.

The parties have agreed to accept a mediation and arbitration to address all unresolved issues that led to the strike. A major challenge is the management of fatigue and the need to implement large effective measures to counter fatigue of railway workers.

If you want to make your order by mistake, you can cancel it within 14 days after you receive the receipt without giving a reason, "it is now in the terms and conditions of iTunes. The only exception to the right of withdrawal is called Apple iTunes gifts that have already been redeemed by the recipient.

Absolutely correct. When I witnessed TV interviews with children at the school, I was not only mortified by the occasion but moreover I cursed the press for exploiting these kids, already traumatized, for the sake of getting a story. These parasites are worse than the paparazzi and should be ashamed of themselves for subjecting these innocent kids to the questions, which themselves were ridiculous. It seems that anything for a story is fair game, no matter that their subjects (the kids) may be further hurt by their actions.

The media no longer "reports"; they wallow. They shriek, they howl; they keen and gnash their teeth. It borders on hysteria and it's disgusting. What's worse is watching them run off, mid-wallow, to the Next Big National Tragedy.

I am no child psychologist, but seems to me that being interviewed by national press and the resulting celebrity can change the way a child reacts or involves themselves in future events that produce such notoriety. There is a certain lure for the mentally vulnerable to achieve publicity through these horrendous acts. And any six-year-old is mentally vulnerable. Children generally thrive on attention. Their brains are not fully formed. If this slaughter leads to children receiving attention on a massive scale, what might be the long term results? Media must be act responsibly. I saw no evidence of responsibility in these interviews.

This is just the latest example of a news media selling death and tragedy for advertising revenue. It's most obvious on places like Yahoo, where they tempt their viewers to click links by promising all the horrific details... and if that doesn't work they might throw in a video of kids running from the building with pure terror on their faces... all to generate hits to sell advertising.

I disagree with the author on one point. Journalists aren't doing any kind of public service by covering these kind of stories. There is no reason why anyone outside of the immediate community needs to know about these events. What good does it do? Who does it help? If anything it only sensationalizes these shootings and causes it to happen more often.

I want to end this by pointing out something I've been thinking of these last couple of days. During a baseball game, if someone runs out on the field, the cameras all turn away. They don't show it... Why? Because showing it would cause it to happen more often. There is a lesson there, I think.

I whole-heartedly agree with this article. I posted yesterday and emailed every major network: "PLEASE stop interviewing the children. It is so morally wrong to be seeking out these little, innocent children and making the re-tell and relive this nightmare. It is reprehensible to do this; no story is worth this. Where is your moral barometer, media representatives, that you can go after the "headline" or "top story" at the expense of the innocents? PLEASE stop....please put these children before your ratings."

There are many ways to skin a cat. the story could have been very well-covered WITHOUT exploiting innocent children who have already been traumatized. Shame on the media and the parents who allowed their children to be interviewed.

Keep the cameras on and definitely interview whomever wants to be interviewed. It's their prerogative to grant the interviews or not. If they want to speak then we should listen. Period. I am VERY PROUD of the media on this one! I know Alex Jones is just somewhere nashing his teeth!! How's this for Free Press!!! No censorship here!!

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I was watching those interviews last night with my 12-year-old son, and the whole time I was thinking, "This is horrifying and unnecessary, and there's no way I would allow my child to be interviewed this way." I'm a print journalist, and I understand the pressure to get the stories and the quotes, but honestly, I felt a little ashamed of my profession last night. The photos of people wracked with grief or uncertainty added little to the story, and invaded the privacy of these people. And the kids, as Poniewozik said, are too young to see R-rated movies and shouldn't have to describe such events for the prurient interest of the public. In hindsight, I wish I had turned off the TV.

I have a problem with the coverage at all, but have no idea what to do about it. A media black-out would be impossible. A friend of mine yesterday suggested that we just never release the name of the shooter, that the public gets no details about his/her life. That's not likely either. What is likely is that someone is out there compiling their own Guinness Book of World Records and thinking, 20? 20's nothin'. I could take out .........

It is quite sad how mixed up stories can get and how the media has to have as much coverage and interviews about the situation. Our small town just recently had a tragedy where kids were shot dead in their house and the gunman soon after took his life. The papers said that the parents were drug addicts and that that was the reason for the shooting (which was false- no one knows the motive). I was also disgusted to see reporters outside of the church as we walked up the sidewalk, they were quick to try and interview us. As we were in the middle of the funeral, there were reporters and cameras in the balcony of the church getting footage for that nights news....Why on earth would any TV station fight over who could get the most footage of a funeral for children....it makes me ill to see what our world is coming to. Where are our morals?

Thanks for the piece, James. Overall, the media's handling of this tragic event was a disgrace. Misinformation and incorrect accusations spread like wildfire throughout the day. I got whiplash from seeing how often the story changed from the media outlets. This type of behaviour is the new norm when news organizations are motivated to get the highest ratings to bring in the most advertising revenue. Our society would be better served if our news outlets did not have to make a profit. Perhaps then we could get reliable and respectable journalism on a consistent basis.

Our media driven society rears its ugly head here, despite the 'public's right to know, most media types don't care much about what is or isn't the right thing to do here. Any parent knows my kid(s) saw enough already, to leave them alone would be impossible...

Also, I agree, great article by Time!! Very responsible, dignified and respectful viewpoint. I wish the media would get an overhaul in this country. I honestly think we need to outlaw allowing children to be exploited - hence, Honey Boo Boo. We are corrupting our youth.

I agree, why are people putting their children on the news??!! What benefit is this to the child?? Go home with your children and talk to them, love them, hug them and pray with them, but stop broadcasting them for the world to see. And I have to say, these journalists are acting like vultures! I seriously read on another news site they journalists went to the home of the first identified slain child and knocked on the door to speak to the parents AND posted how much their house cost! Ridiculous. Journalism needs to find a moral compass and discretion when tragedies occur.

Why pretend nothing happened. Somebody's initial reaction from trauma exposure would be to block it out, but eventually it will take a toll on their mental, emotional, physical state. Maybe they are not ready to talk now, but they must.

We have to understand why this happened. Why would a woman who has no ties to military have an automatic gun in her house. Why should she be allowed to have gun or ANYONE has a gun in their home. Why would not anyone address the main problem and everyone is focusing on the result. The boy is the result of all of us actions. You can not plant a bad seed and expect it be grow fruits of happiness.... Why is the media full of poisoned movies for kids. The next one coming out is more violent than the last. It seems there is competition on who can make the worst movie or cartoon for kids. The more violent gets more attention and more $$$$$. We are all in this together either by supporting the wrong media and buying the wrong video games or buying any games. Why there is no gun control. This is our fault not a 20yrs old boy fault. He is just a product of our actions. why don't we for once take responsibility for our wrong doing

I agree! Tonight a little girl was interviewed on Pierce Morgan, and it didn't take a child psychologist to figure out that this kid didn't want to talk. Her stupid mother, on the other hand, seemed to want *HER* 15 mins. of fame. These kids have been through enough; knock it off, people.

I totally agree. This county is all about publicity and what makes money and brings more attention. Here you have it. A kid who is product of this publicity and making money at any cost. The 20 yrs old is product of this very media who shows all the movies about killing. all the game shows that is about the killings. What do you think that does to the mind of an innocent child. It brainwashes it to go and do the same thing. Now media has more buzz to play with and interview kids who are victims of the crime. shame on the media in this country. The are the main cause of this problem. I can not keep my kids away from this poisoned media......

I was furious to see these children being interviewed. Not just at the journalists, but at the parents as well, smh! Kudos to the parents that hustled their children away as fast as possible, away from prying eyes and inquiring minds. I can't say enough prayers for the families that lost their little Angels today and the leaders that chose Fight over Flight. God Bless you all.

I was shocked to see reporters asking young children their first and last names on camera. No one should ever be allowed to broadcast this information. The reporters and the stations that allowed this to be broadcast should be ashamed of themselves. If it isn't against the law, it should be.

These families have enough to endure without media hounds sticking cameras their faces. After this kind of unimaginable tragedy, I just find it the media's behaviour reprehensible. Exercise a little humanity and extend the families some common decency--you'd think they deserve that much...

I was unhappy with the use of children unnecessarily. What the Dart Center is not mentioning is that these images and interviews are now permanent records for every one of these children. They will be forever searchable on the internet just as the son erroneously identified as the shooter. The 24 hours news cycle has got to change and that will only happen when the $$$ is not the driver of journalism and reporting. Of course that means media control is as likely as gun control in this country..

either way the guy had guns, if this guy had some kind of what they are calling it now as a "brain disorder" the parents should have had them locked up. no you cannot predict if someone is going to go crazy or not, but there are always signs. Its just a tragic story and I am praying for all involved.

I was so frustrated when i saw this poor 3rd grade girl answered to a reporter questions from WHNT next to her mom. I said fired her and that mom needs a lot parenting classes. It didnt even click on her mind. Ahhhh God What is wrong with people? Too much media in America, too much violence on TVs, it is time for better gun control regulations.

I agree with most of you, children should not be placed on tv, not even pictures. There was pictures of children walking single file holding onto each other crying and as upset as they were, they had a camera pointed right at them. Their poor hearts are broken, they are traumatized for the rest of their life, and this reporter obviously cared more about getting this photo than how these children felt...and as far as re:Children deserve to have their voices heard as well..: that is BS its just an excuse to try to make these kids feel comfortable talking to reporters, not at all civil on the reporters end and yes the parents should not allow it either

EXCELLENT article. I was absolutely disgusted to see children interviewed about this horrific event this morning. They had just experienced something they should NEVER have to experience, and there were microphones and cameras shoved in their faces! Believe me, if I was a parent of one of these children, and a reporter had dared approach me to interview my child, the reporter would have a whole new headline..."Woman's Shoe Lodged in Reporter's Ass." News at 11.

I absolutely cringed when I saw a young 5-6 yr. old child telling about whatshe heard & saw. They are CHILDREN! Leave them alone! Shame on the journalists who put any of these children on camera - with or without the parents permission. I agree with what the article states about asking yourself, Would I want MY child on the news after what he or she had just been through? And if that journalist is young and lacks the maturity to discern such wisdom, then perhaps that journalist should not be covering such tragic, sensitive and traumatizing events - or at least without a wiser more experienced journalist in the lead.

I could not agree more. These children will forever be changed by what they experienced today. I actually heard one reporter ask a child "What did the people in the hall look like?" For God's sake, they were dead in a pool of blood. If the child actually saw this, do we want them trying to explain what they had seen? NO! It's bad enough that they ask adults these questions, but not children.

Very well said! I'm sickened by the cold heartedness of the media. Does it really matter who was the first to be on the scene or first to break the story or whose ratings are better because of coverage??? ? Thank you for bringing this to light. You've earned my respect

I have to agree - No interviewing kids. They have enough to deal with. And to top it off they have parents, relatives, friend, schoolmates, and psychologists who are going to be overly attentive to say the least. The last thing they need are nosy reporters being in their faces.

People blame videos games for violence becoming the norm but think about this... prior to Columbine this sort of thing was unheard of but afterwards with all the media attention in seems that others try to duplicate or one up the previous offender. If the media hadn't broadcasted others actions would it have happened so much sense Columbine? Just CMA I'll say I'm not saying this to defend video games or the like. Sometimes I think "sick" people see the harm and grief that others have achieved and seek ways to mimic.